DECEMBER 13, 1918] 
lieve that all this was designed, but if the doc- 
trine of mechanism holds, and Darwin is 
usually supposed to have been a mechanist, it 
has been, by series of material configurations 
which extend back to the beginning of time, 
absolutely determined for every swallow that 
ever existed or ever will exist, precisely which 
gnats he shall snap up and precisely when he 
shall snap up each particular gnat. If me- 
ehanism holds, chance does not exist in the 
commonly accepted sense of the term, and the 
statement so often made that this or that 
structure or phenomenon originated by chance 
or the fortuitous concourse of atoms indicates 
that the import of the mechanistic doctrine is 
not fully comprehended, for according to this 
doctrine every movement of every atom, every 
atomic configuration is absolutely determined 
by preceding movements or configurations and 
no other movements or configurations are 
possible. 
Tf mechanism holds without limit, it is idle 
nonsense to talk about what might have been. 
The great calamity that has befallen the world, 
spreading misery as far as east is from west, 
threatening to ruin civilization, was scheduled 
before the world was. And if this is true, is 
it not sheer folly to hold this or that indi- 
vidual. whose every act is absolutely deter- 
mined, responsible for the calamity? If mech- 
chanism holds, we are merely cogs in a ma- 
chine, nothing more, and freedom is a sort of 
epiphenomenon that exists only in the ethereal 
realms of philosophical speculation. Do not 
misunderstand me, I do not maintain that no 
one is responsible for the war; far from it! 
I do not know to what extent the mechanis- 
tic doctrine is valid; all reaction may possibly 
be absolutely determined by material config- 
urations; but I do know that I act as though 
I could, in a measure, regulate the order of 
phenomena about me, and my actions so as to 
harmonize with this order in such a way as to 
receive pleasure and avoid pain and disaster. 
And I believe that in view of the difficulties 
involved and in the present state of our knowl- 
edge, the general acceptance of this doctrine, 
without restrictions, is not advisable, because 
SCIENCE 
587 
I think that, like all fatalistic doctrines, it 
would perniciously affect human conduct.* 
Has then the attempt to reduce animate re- 
actions to mechanical principles been a fail- 
ure? It has been a failure in the sense that 
all science has been a failure. The purpose 
of science is to ascertain and to regulate the 
order of phenomena in nature; to ascertain 
in series the sequence of changes in material 
configurations. In no such series have all the 
changes yet been ascertained and they prob- 
ably never will be. We know in part and we 
prophesy in part. Engelmann proved that 
sudden reduction in illumination causes re- 
actions in Zuglena, which result in the forma- 
tion of dense aggregations in strong light. 
Lubbock discovered certain definite relations 
between wave-length of light and reactions ‘in 
Daphnia and various other organisms. Ver- 
worn found that various animals orient defi- 
nitely in electric currents. Loeb showed that 
photie orientation in Eudendrium bears a cer- 
tain relation to the quantity of light energy 
received. Jennings demonstrated that weak 
acids and various other substances induce re- 
actions in Paramecium, resulting in the for- 
mation of aggregations by the so-called trial 
and error method. Parker discovered certain 
definite relations between the rate of vibration 
in the surrounding medium and reactions in 
fishes. All of these responses and innumerable 
others have been to a certain extent reduced 
to mechanics, for in all of them series of 
changes in material configuration ending in 
reactions have been ascertained. 
The attempt to reduce animate responses to 
physico-chemical principles has resulted in 
evidence which proves conclusively that a 
great majority of such responsess if not all 
of them, are at least in a measure mechan- 
ically determined. To ascertain the extent of 
4 Many who read this article will doubtless con- 
elude that the author is a vitalist. Such, however, 
is not the case. He believes that the evidence 
at hand does not, as yet, warrant a definite 
conclusion regarding the extent of the validity 
of either vitalism or mechanism, and he holds with 
Huxley that ‘‘ assertion which outstrips evidence 
is not only a blunder, but a crime.’’ 
